Iied dbsa project

6.8 IDENTIFIED GAPS IN THE TOOL BOX

There was a general consensus there was no shortage of tools in the toolbox and the problems lay less with the tools and more with the users of the tools, values and mindsets. The table below was mostly not filled in but a few participants did highlight some of the concerns raised by as to where the tools were particularly weak. Inputs received are marked with an X.

Environmental integration tasks	Indicate with a tick if no useful tools are available (in your view)
Information and assessment	X No reason provided
Deliberation and engagement	XX Skills are particularly absent here need tools to build skills Should be limited to affected people
Planning and organising	X Inadequate for biodiversity planning No overarching strategic tools used to assess the full impact of regional projects. Inadequate for biodiversity planning
Management & monitoring	X Inadequate for biodiversity issues XX There is lots of scope for a universal framework for monitoring and evaluating, linked to project planning and management tools Very few useful frameworks appear to exist for ongoing management and monitoring of projects and particularly for measuring development impact
Other (specify) General comments	X With sufficient insight and knowledge, there are tools to assist with all of these tasks – in particular issues focussed approaches, And dialoguing tools. Changing hegemony – no one tool can do that – you need unique combinations of many tools for that
Values and faiths is an issue needing addressing	X Relatively under explored - impact could be significant
	X We need habit forming tools for local people that mainstream environment into daily decisions Tools for full cost accounting of products in daily use by citizens
Empowerment training and awareness raising	X no reason provided
Briefing note for decision-makers	X It would be extremely useful to have a short, ‘briefing note’ for decision makers summarising the implications for sustainability of a proposed activity, in a consistent, simple format that made sense and reflected a) the alternatives and b) the KEY issues i.t.o. sustainability criteria relevant to that activity including human rights and socio ecological systems
Social equity assessment	X How to work towards improving social equity through building consideration of social values into environmental assessment. Translating and weighing key issues and values raised during stakeholder engagement/ scoping, and a) incorporating them into a ‘significance’ ratings and/or b) dealing with them specifically and separately ito effects of different actions on these values. EA as currently practised uses key issues to focus the impact assessment (i.e. which specialist studies), but significance ratings predominantly relate to technical and scientific information. Added to this is the fact that EA’s seldom deal with equity issues – who wins, who loses, etc. By building in values and the relative importance to stakeholders of different issues into significance ratings, equity could be better addressed.
Tools to build skills	These are needed because skills are particularly absent.

7 THE NEED FOR A USER GUIDE

Existing Studies and guidelines of a similar nature
There are several relevant studies undertaken in South Africa on the subject of environmental mainstreaming tools and methodologies.

• 
  UCT Environmental Evaluation Unit in partnership with various government departments producing a study on tools for mainstreaming the environmental in IDP’s, municipal management, land use planning and land reform programmes
  

• 
  DEAT – Reviewing effectiveness of EIA legislation
  
• 
  DEAT – Guidelines for integrating the environment into IDP’s
  
• 
  DEAT/UCT The SA Guidelines on EIM produced by DEAT
  
• 
  CSIR – Sustainability Science
  
• 
  UNEP IFC international sector guidelines
  
• 
  DPLG – Stimulating and developing sustainable communities 2006 - 2011
  
• 
  Anglo American has developed a tool box
  
• 
  SANBI/DPLG/UNEP Partnership - Development of National Municipal Biodiversity Programme
  

There are a couple of interesting URLs dealing with comparison of environmental tools but its my personal opinion that they are probably only of interest to a limited number of academics.

http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/ETG/pubs/traditional_innovative_tools.pdf

http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/events/epi/volkery_jacob.pdf

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/GH-14-98-065-EN-C/en/enviissu10.pdf
Anon
Is there a need for a new User Guide on Tools and if so how should it be approached
A consistent theme running through every interview was the theme around lack of understanding and lack of skills (human resources quantity and quality issues around environmental awareness and integration) in integrated environmental management, holistic thinking and systems thinking. The needs can be tiered as follows:

• 
  The key need is for people to understand environmental issues and systems thinking in general and develop values around responsibly managing ecosystems and services.
  
• 
  There after there is a need to develop skills in understanding tools available and thereafter using tools appropriately and effectively
  

It is clear from many comments that for the majority of people the need for information and training is less on tools and more on holistic thinking and on understanding of the value of the environment to quality of life and survival in the immediate and long term. The study revealed that there were many people who had problems with an exercise that looked primarily at tools only.

There is little evidence that policy-makers are exposed to information regarding the environmental damage and its effects on communities. Many have come through an education system that neglected to raise awareness of the sanctity and centrality of the environment in human wellness.
Moshe Swartz
Do we really need another guide to environmental tools? Government departments seem to be rigidly bound only the tools, such as EIA, that are statutory requirements. And even there the focus is on compliance with administrative procedures rather than real consideration of the environmental merits of applications.
Anon


8 CONCLUSION

There is a wealth of local tools being developed for integrating environment into decision making. There is no shortage of poor practice and good practice examples in the application of many of these tools in government, business and community/NGO sectors. The successful examples are those approaches that integrate and combine many tools, with philosophies and appropriate user skills and understanding. Whilst the questionnaires homed in on the tools, the interviews and the case studies were able to draw out more about the relationship of tools/methods/approaches to sustainable development and systems thinking. The workshops raised awareness and levels of debate around favoured reoccurring themes – conclusions of which can be summarised as such:

• 
  After much philosophical debate it could only be concluded there are tools that are more prone to perpetuate the dominant power relations in society, paradigms and mindsets and then there are those that can help to challenge them. Mostly however the same tools can likely to do either or depending on the user and context the tool is applied in
  

• 
  There are tools that are fuzzy and tools that are well defined and both have a significant role to play. It is not a matter of either or as much as it is a debate of acknowledging the importance of both and how to use both effectively.
  

• 
  Tools cannot replace the need for knowledge, understanding, building positive relationships and they are only as effective as the user has a spirit of love and care for the people and environment the tools are intended to ultimately serve
  

• 
  Changing hegemony and values is a complex interactive and dynamic, cyclical, learning process and everyone has a small role to play in the greater scheme of things and a small window from which they can build a picture of the whole and work out their points of intervention, tools of relevance and contributions. Changing values also is dependent on changing material and structural realities people live and work in. There is a dialectical relationship between the two and tools play a small but significant role in both.
  

• 
  Any guide on tools only becomes valuable if it is deeply embedded and an integral part of a whole philosophical approach to development.
  

• 
  We need to work with tools that highlight and respect different philosophical/epistemological views, but we also need tools that are also able to help challenge dominant paradigms and power relationships and that will guide principle led development, create space for indigenous, ecocentric systems thinking, give a voice to the poor and develop more deep ecology approaches to development – these perhaps are going to be increasingly the more valued tools in our box.
  

South African trends and needs

• 
  South Africa is clearly currently depending heavily on legal and participatory tools but there is increased awareness there are other tools/approaches and tactics that are of immense value and that need to be more popularised. Most tools require a change in value and mindsets before they will be taken seriously.
  

• 
  There are also existing development decision making tools that are currently functional and influential and which need to be better utilised such as IDP’s, EMF’s, Growth and Development Plans, Spatial Development Plans, Zoning Plans etc.
  

• 
  For many South African decision makers, including those with post graduate degrees and in positions that are primarily concerned with environmental management, the main tools used to manage the environment are tools such as meetings, budgets, workshops and laws ( only those that are enforceable) etc. There is not much critical awareness and use of more technical environmental management tools other than the EIA. Tools such as SEAs, EMPs, EMS’s and bioregional plans are beginning to enter the picture and are implemented at a basic level. There influence on development scenarios and trends is weak. This does not apply to all parts of the country because there are definitely communities and organisations that have made significant impacts with the use of these conventional environmental management tools – for example in biodiversity mainstreaming in the Western Cape.
  

• 
  The country is particularly lacking in approaches to development that provide a voice to rural communities.
  

• 
  The tools and approaches South Africans are drawing from have been adopted and adapted from across the world and not only from the western countries (for example: participatory methodologies are popular in South Africa).
  

• 
  South Africans have also had a fair role to play in helping with the development of tools globally in general (for example: by engaging through international forums and networks such as IAIA). The contributions South Africa has made include ensuring tools such as SEA’s include a holistic integrated approach to the development rather than just focus on the biophysical environment. South Africa has also championed the integrated environmental management approach to developing and using tools which has led into the exploration of new approaches (for example: that of sustainability science). As the old Chinese proverb has it “As long danger mounts so too will the powers that save”.
  

• 
  South Africa is also particularly strong on the struggle for democracy; something our history taught us is worth fighting for. But it is indeed a long walk to freedom, and it is getting steeper as we move on especially when it comes to securing environmental justice for all. (The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry motto puts it very succinctly - Some for all for ever, rather than all for some for now).
  

• 
  One significant unaddressed and underestimated legacy of our history is that it has left many people convinced it is possible to separate environment from economics and society and that it is then possible to prioritise economic issues over and above environmental issues. As long as such myths and others prevail in our schools, media, institutions of faith, offices, government departments, parliament and homes, there will be very little hope for society and few tools will ever be taken out that box. If and when they are they will unlikely be used effectively (Energy EIA Case Study). There are ways such mindsets can be altered through the promotion of philosophies such as zero waste, systems thinking and through tools such as resource economics (eThekwini Case Study). The question really is do we have the luxury of time to approach environmental mainstreaming in this fashion.
  

The top 10 tools in the box that would most effectively, efficiently influence development patterns are identified as follows:

Philosophy/approach	Comment
Tool/method and tactic	Comment

In general the tool box and its applications do provide a positive support to a host of various approaches and initiatives that are far and wide reaching but overall we have still failed to rise to the challenge of building a healthy, safe and fair environment for all and we are far from meeting our millennium development goals. The failure appears not to be the tool box – we have a great tool box even if it does have a few identifiable weaknesses. Whether or not we make significant progress will depend largely on other factors. We need to focus less on the box itself and more on the users and the context. Not to acknowledge this is the similar to producing more and more fishing boats – with more and more sophisticated ways to track and catch fish, when indeed there are no fish left in the seas.

We are all guilty of subscribing to sustainable thinking and not applying the principles – we are used to big solutions and simple one tool approaches but incremental change is probably of greater impact in the end. We have to walk the talk ourselves

Michelle Audouin CSIR
The tool is the person
Mzamo Dlamini


SOUTH AFRICAN TEAM MEMBERS

Julie Clarke (Co ordinator and Steering Committee member)

Saphira Patel ( interviewer and Steering Committee member)

Khathu Tshipale ( interviewer)

Patrick Karane ( interviewer)

Ruan Kruger ( interviewer)

Sizwe Sokupa ( interviewer)

Sandy Heather (interviewer)

Sinegugu Kukulu ( interviewer)
Penny Urquhart (case study and Steering Committee member)

Myles Mandler (case study)

Wilfred Williams (case study)

Paul Lochner et al (case studies)

Richard Worthington (case study)
Barry Delal Clayton ( International IIED support and overall international coordinator)

Alex Weaver (Peer Reviewer)

APPENDIXES

• 
  CASE STUDIES
  
• 
  PARTICIPANTS
  
• 
  THE QUESTIONNAIRE
  
• 
  STATE OF ENVIRONMENT REPORT SA
  

REFERENCES

• 
  Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2006. South Africa Environmental Outlook. A report on the State of the Environment. Executive Summary and key findings. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism , Pretoria 42pp
  

Still list the others

APPENDIX 1
CASE STUDIES

ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING IN INFORMING THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND PLANNING OF LARGE-SCALE PROJECTS IN THE PRE-FEASIBILITY STAGE
Prepared by: Paul Lochner¹, Stuart Heather-Clark², Patrick Morant³ and Douglas Trotter⁴

Summary
In South Africa, environmental and social screening studies are being used increasingly by proponents of large-scale projects in order to provide an early understanding of the significant environmental and social implications of the project. This case study collates experience and lessons learned from several recent screening studies for potential industrial and infrastructure projects in South Africa. These studies are undertaken during the pre-feasibility stage of the project and tend to be done at the discretion of the project proponent prior to the potential commencement of a legislated Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The main objective of these screening studies is to incorporate environmental and social considerations into the conceptual planning and design, a phase usually dominated by technical and financial criteria. The screening study is largely qualitative and is based on a coarse level of project-related information and associated uncertainties. It usually includes some form of opportunities and constraints identification, environmental assessment and fatal flaws analysis.
Introduction
In South Africa, environmental legislation under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) is placing more emphasis on the downstream management and monitoring of environmental impacts. Hence, there is more emphasis being placed on post-EIA requirements, such as Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) and environmental monitoring during the project lifetime. This encouraging trend is further supported by increasing use of screening by project proponents to include environmental and social considerations upstream in the project planning process.
In South Africa, two types of screening are applied (DEAT, 2002):

• 
  Mandatory screening typically administered by an environmental authority to determine if the project requires environmental assessment and if so what level of assessment is appropriate; and
  
• 
  Pre-application screening, which usually precedes the legislated EIA process and is typically done at the discretion of the project proponent.
  

This case study focuses on the latter (i.e. pre-application screening), which is defined as follows:

“Pre-application screening is the process whereby key environmental and social issues associated with a proposed development are anticipated at the earliest opportunity, and are considered as an integral part of pre-feasibility investigation. Questions pertaining to the need for, and desirability of the proposed development must be considered, and issues such as technology and location alternatives have to be appraised at an appropriate level of detail. Pre-application screening often involves some form of fatal flaw analysis.” (DEAT, 2002: 3)
This case study uses the term screening to refer to pre-application screening. It is based on a review of several such studies for large industrial developments in the mining, power generation, ore processing and transport sectors (Table 1). These studies are generally confidential and have not been placed in the public domain. While this adds to the value of the case study – in that previously unavailable experience is being communicated – it does require that information from the projects is generalised.
Purpose Of Screening
The need for screening emerges from the recurring problem of environmental and social issues not being addressed early enough in the development cycle. Usually technical and financial planning is well advanced when the project is placed in the public domain as part of the EIA process, while environmental and social issues have not been appropriately considered. This can limit the ability of environmental factors to influence the project strategically (e.g. consideration of site and technology alternatives) and can result in the subsequent EIA process being largely an exercise in impact mitigation; or lead to the EIA identifying fatal flaws that either prevent the project from proceeding or lead to substantial re-design and associated delays (Figure 1). In South Africa, the latter consequence has led to the EIA process being labelled as a “green handbrake” on development. Furthermore, the lack of consideration of environmental and social issues early on in the development cycle may lead to unnecessary delays in the EIA process as a result of public outrage.
The purpose of screening, as presented in this case study, is therefore to:

• 
  Provide early identification of potential environmental and social “fatal flaws” or “show stoppers” which would influence subsequent more detailed feasibility studies and project engineering design.
  

• 
  Provide recommendations of practical measures which can be incorporated into the early design and planning of the project that will result either in the avoidance of potentially significant negative environmental impacts or their mitigation to the extent that residual effects fall within acceptable limits; and the enhancement of positive aspects of the project.
  

• 
  Enable the project partners to investigate proactively and plan for the incorporation of these recommendations into the planning and design of the project prior to the commencement of the public EIA process.
  

• 
  Provide a basis for more detailed studies to address specific environmental and social issues that may require a greater level of understanding before proceeding to an EIA.
  

• 
  Provide details on baseline studies that may need to be initiated early on in the development cycle so as to provide the basis for a defensible EIA. This is particularly relevant to greenfields projects in regions of Africa where there is very little environmental and social baseline information available.
  

Figure 1: Effect of screening studies in potentially reducing time to reach EIA decision

Approach to screening studies
The scope of the screening studies, within the selected case studies, includes:

• 
  Consideration of biophysical and socio-economic issues, within the context of governance and the relevant legislative framework
  
• 
  Project alternatives, usually high-level alternatives such as alternative project scale, technologies, locations and sites / routing options
  
• 
  Consultation with key decision-makers and experts to identify key issues.
  

The process typically consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Project inception - collation of project information

Step 2: Issue identification – based on inputs from decision-makers and experts

Step 3: Specialist inputs – to identify environmental constraints, assess impacts and recommend design changes

Step 4: Integration and reporting – to inform conceptual project planning and design.

Typical aspects of the assessment method:

• 
  The assessment is largely qualitative and based on available information, including expert opinion from the specialist team.
  
• 
  Although the specialists generally do not undertake numerical modelling, they can use existing modelling results from previous studies to enhance the depth and detail of their analyses. (In some studies basic modelling is required – for example to screen alternative locations and depths for a marine discharge pipeline).
  
• 
  Where information on the project is not available (due to the early stage of project design), proxy information can be sourced from analogous projects.
  
• 
  South African regulations and/or guidelines are used as reference standards. Where these are not available or relevant, international standards are used (e.g. World Bank).
  
• 
  The impact assessment considers the project under various plausible future environmental scenarios (e.g. drought and water availability); as well as risk situations associated with the project (e.g. major equipment failure).
  
• 
  Impacts are described and assessed in terms of the status of the impact (positive, negative, neutral), impact significance, degree of confidence in the assessment, and whether the impact is considered to constitute a “fatal flaw”.
  
• 
  A “fatal flaw” is typically defined as an impact that could have a “no-go” implication for the project, unless there is opportunity for the project design to avoid/mitigate this impact effectively. For example, this could apply when the project is predicted to not comply with legislated standards or guidelines; or to exceed a recognised environmental threshold (e.g. ecological water reserve for a river).
  
• 
  Recommendations include more detailed studies required to address uncertainties together with baseline studies that could be initiated early in the development cycle so as to provide sufficient information for a defensible EIA (i.e. this would save time in the long run).
  

Examples of screening studies
Screening studies that provide the basis for this case study are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Examples of recent screening studies in southern Africa

Description of study	Interesting features of the screening study	How the study informed further planning & design
Environmental site suitability for a manganese smelter in southern Africa	Assessed sites in South Africa and Mozambique	Recommended a preferred site. Identified potential fatal flaws for two sites.
Optimising selection of areas for minerals sands mining	Assessed an extensive mineral prospecting lease in southern Mozambique	Recommended a preferred site and a detailed geohydrological study to ensure the future of coastal lakes
Investigation of the environmental suitability of technologies for marine mining of heavy mineral sand	Identified certain terrestrial components associated with the project as requiring further technical and environmental investigation	Enabled more accurate estimation of costs associated with operating in the marine environment in an environmentally acceptable manner
Environmental and social screening study for a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant at a coastal location and using seawater cooling	A relatively detailed study that effectively provided a site-specific “first cut” EIA of the proposed project (largely based on proxy project data).	Recommended layout and design options to avoid/reduce impacts, particularly related to the marine environment.
Environmental fatal flaws analysis for a proposed new railway line route and export facility for raw materials	Railway route was overlain onto the recently published National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment to identify potential impacts on conservation priorities and networks	Provided broad-scale recommendations for route alignment, which required further technical investigation.
Environmental and social screening studies for long term port development and planning in South Africa	Environmental and social team worked closely with port engineers and planners to identify possible long term port development opportunities	Environmental and social criteria were identified and rated in an overall risk matrix, which included financial, engineering and planning criteria, to identify most suitable future port development options.

Lessons learned
During the pre-feasibility stage of projects there is often inadequate consideration of environmental and social factors. The case studies above endeavoured to improve this situation in the following manner:

• 
  They assisted the project proponent to do their “environmental and social homework” early in the project design process. Frequently project proponents initiate an EIA when it appears on the critical path for the development. They conduct their first assessment of the project in the public domain and if fatal flaws emerge at this stage, it is time consuming to rectify this situation. Furthermore, an ill-conceived project that has serious environmental or social impacts could lead to public outrage and lengthy delays in the overall project schedule. Screening provides an opportunity for an in-house “first cut” assessment and project refinement, before entering the public domain.
  

• 
  They provided for an iterative assessment of impacts and project refinement, which correlated with the increasing level of project detail that developed through the design process. During pre-feasibility, when conceptual data are available, a qualitative screening assessment is done. As the design becomes more certain, the detailed EIA studies can be undertaken, where the authorities usually require a quantitative assessment with high levels of certainty.
  

• 
  They provided for iterative consideration and refinement of alternatives. The EIA process specifically requires that alternatives be included. However, it would not be practical to develop all possible alternatives to a sufficient level of detail in order to enable a detailed quantitative assessment thereof in the EIA phase. Therefore the screening study provides a mechanism whereby alternatives (especially location alternatives) are assessed at a broad-scale. This assessment can then be reported in the subsequent EIA process and set the framework for the alternatives that are considered in the EIA. This approach can demonstrate that considerable thought has gone into the project design and could increase the credibility of the proponent in the eyes of the stakeholders.
  

• 
  They provide an opportunity for early identification of baseline studies that may be required for a defensible EIA. Early identification of these studies will result in a time savings if initiated at the right time in the development cycle.
  

• 
  They assist in an understanding of the mitigation and design measures which will be required to reduce environmental impacts at the early design stages of the development. This allows for the original designs and financial considerations to incorporate site specific impact mitigation considerations prior to EIA reporting;
  

• 
  They significantly informed the requirements and approach for the Scoping and Assessment phases of the subsequent EIA studies. This included the range of environmental issues, and interested and affected parties. In addition, the consultation with key decision makers and experts during the screening studies significantly contributed to planning the details of the EIA process.
  

Conclusions
This case study, which considers large industrial projects, indicates that screening provides the opportunity for proponents to include environmental and social considerations in the pre-feasibility stage, when there is greater ability to influence the overall conceptualisation and design of the project. This approach enhances the potential for the project to be planned and designed to avoid and/or mitigate significant negative environmental and social impacts; and to enhance the positive benefits through innovative thinking. Consequently, there is reduced risk of “fatal flaws” emerging in the subsequent EIA phase and causing delays in the overall project schedule. Screening also provides opportunity for early identification of baseline studies that may be required in advance of the EIA process, and could otherwise have required an extended period for the EIA phase. In a developing country context such as South Africa, by reducing the risk of delays in the EIA process, screening studies can potentially ameliorate the perception that EIA is a “green handbrake” on development.

References
DEAT, 2002. Screening, Information Series 1, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria. Available at www.environment.gov.za

ETHEKWINI - RE-IMAGINING THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT

Myles Mandler – Resource Economist

Imagine the role of the environment in a developing country municipal paradigm:
Imagine political perceptions of environment:

• 
  Environment is an obstacle to development
  
• 
  It is development versus environment
  
• 
  Environment is a luxury we can't afford
  
• 
  Biodiversity can't vote
  
• 
  Should people go hungry and live in shacks while chameleons are protected in grasslands that have high potential for crops
  

Municipal action is a function of political priorities. Municipalities have to deliver services and regulate society – that is their role. However, in South Africa municipalities have also become developers - of low cost housing and service infrastructure. So how does the regulator regulate itself? In a developing society most votes are won on services supply - not for regulation. And will you stop low income housing being supplied if you want a career in local government? So why regulate? Yes - the law says you must regulate, but the political bosses don't really want you to and importantly you must not stop development of the poor. So as a regulator what do you do? Get people to jump the hoops - making sure the hoops are low enough for practically any development to jump through? And as for prosecutions - pray do tell us - how many recorded prosecutions have there been in the whole of South Africa for environment management contraventions? You could probably count them on one hand. And one government department may not prosecute another department - and when government is developer........how many prosecutions do you expect? Zero.

So what real incentives are there for municipal officials to stop or slow down the supply of immediate political service supply priorities like housing? When high levels of poverty demands immediate responses to hunger, unemployment and housing, how does a regulator justify stopping service delivery? How can you justify long term sustainability in the face of crippling poverty?
Now imagine the Environment Management Tool Box and the developing context. Imagine the:

• 
  Best tools in the world
  
• 
  Best mechanics to use them
  
• 
  Best guidelines for using the tools
  

But will the workshop manager give the mechanic the time, money and other resources to do the job - of preventing the achievement of immediate political goals for the sake of long term sustainability - what ever that means.

Reality check - the municipal manager
The law says get the management tools - so you get them. The law says employ if you can afford to - but you can't afford to because resources are scarce and the resources should be used to service the poor. So you make sure you hire environment managers sparing - very sparingly. Now for the ever elusive operations budget. Remember the size of the budget determines the success of delivery. So if you choke off the budget - you emasculate implementation and that means you can build more houses for the poor. So you systematically emasculate the environment mechanics and you get the development you need for the votes you want - after all - in politics, long term is 5 years. Global warming is 50 years ....... ag shame!
So what does this mean for environment managers? Sorry for you - the wonderful tool box means nothing without committed budget – consequently it stays closed.
So is there an alternative paradigm for environment management to operate in?
Yes – by re-imagining the role of environment in development. Just as the municipality develops man-made capital to supply services, so natural capital supplies ecosystem services for municipal residents. In Ethekwini Municipality (EM) also known as Durban, the total annual municipal budget is approximately R12 billion. It is estimated that the replacement costs of ecosystem services supplied in Ethekwini municipality by natural assets is currently R4.2 billion. So if Durban did not have its natural assets - then the municipality would have to find another R4.2 billion, or an additional third of the current budget, to supply the replacement services necessary to keep the residents in the quality of life they already enjoy.
What are the opportunity costs of such a loss? The presence of the functional ecosystems that supply environment services to the municipality as a whole are critical to achieving the goals of municipal development.  Apart from quality of life benefits, ecosystem services also supply basic rights, like access to:

• 
  Quality living environment,
  
• 
  Better health,
  
• 
  Adequate quantities of clean water,
  
• 
  Easy access to recreation opportunities,
  
• 
  Housing,
  
• 
  Energy,
  
• 
  Food, and
  
• 
  Economically productive opportunities
  

The bottom line is that the natural environment supplements the municipality’s servicing.  This achieves two key objectives, meeting basic needs and freeing up finances for investment into communities that have neither engineered services nor access to natural services, such as the urban poor.  To illustrate this point, let us ask some questions relating to the potential costs of not having a functional natural environment in the municipality.  For example:-

• 
  What would it cost EM to supply all rural people (about 300 000) in EM with piped water? What would the costs to the households be as a result of greater incidence of disease (medical costs, lost productivity costs) resulting from having to use polluted water?
  
• 
  What would it cost EM to supply all rural and urban households in EM with reticulated sewerage systems? And what opportunity costs would this result in – i.e.  who would not get access to better services as municipal budgets are spent on priority services?
  
• 
  What would it cost rural households to build with only commercially available building materials? 
  
• 
  What would it cost rural households to replace wood fuel with paraffin or gas for cooking and heating?  What would the electricity infrastructure costs be for EM to supply all rural households in EM if wood fuel was not available?
  
• 
  What would it cost the economy to have to generate all new jobs in only the manufacturing sector (while the cheaper jobs in tourism and agriculture would be forgone)?
  
• 
  What would the costs be to rural and urban households if food production was not possible within the municipality?
  
• 
  What would be the economic losses of not having international recreation events such as canoe races?
  
• 
  What would the travel costs be for rural households to have to access alternative recreation facilities?  What would the costs be of constructing and maintaining recreation facilities for rural and coastal communities?
  
• 
  What would the costs be to the EM economy of having Springfield Park flooded every 5 years as a result of the natural areas in the upper catchment not containing floods?
  
• 
  What would the costs be to EM tourism if the sea was brown and polluted for extensive periods of the year (already Umgeni estuary is only safe for recreation for some 60 days a year)?  What would the costs be if international surfing events were terminated by poor water quality?
  

Yes – the list is tiresome and we could go on - as this only highlights a few of the potential costs. The costs and losses associated with the above, are likely to be in the hundreds of millions.  Without management there will be huge costs – around R4 billion a year to replace environmental services. The costs of not having these services for both the rural poor and the municipality (and therefore all city residents) would be unaffordable.  Clearly the maintenance of these services is critical to the long-term well being of all EM residents. 

When environment is discussed in these terms - bread and butter issues for city residents - rich and poor – and human rights abuse through environment degradation - it becomes a tough trade-off for politicians. The conservation versus development debate is no longer valid as conservation in this case is for development or for at least maintaining quality of life. And in terms of economic limiting factors - consider the following:

• 
  60% of KZN province’s economic activity takes place in Durban,
  
• 
  more than 33% of the province’s population lives in Durban,
  
• 
  on 1.4% of land of the province. 
  

So what do you think the economic limiting factor is?  Any guesses?

The classic Durban case is the South Industrial Basin, where environment quality has become so poor that the resident community has become openly militant against any new development - not because of the chameleons, but because of the perceived humans rights abuse.  Consequently, development is stone-walled and politicians and municipal officials have to tread very carefully in the precinct - literally - with even independent facilitators being hounded out of the suburb at the mere suggestion of additional developments. Clearly, the costs of any further environment degradation in this area outweighs any other real economic benefits to the community.   
So the message is - the chameleon is not the goal of management, but is one of the bolts in the engine that generates quality of life for people.  Re-imagine the role of the chameleon and the other nuts and bolts. Environment economics is a persuasive means to re-imagine the role of environment management in municipalities – use it.
Has this been done before?
Yes - Ethekwini municipality re-imagined the role of environment in the metro. In 1998 Durban looked at what services the open space supplied and valued those ecosystem services. This then led to a re-naming of the open space system, from DMOSS (Durban Metropolitan Open Space System) to the Environmental Services Management Plan. The re-imagined approach was adopted by the Municipality’s Council, establishing a proactive policy for ecosystem services management – thereby providing a politically defensible argument for ecosystems management. And later on, ecosystem services management was one of the key structuring elements in the municipality’s spatial development framework and also features strongly in the integrated development plan. The progressive policy platform then served as a basis for regulating development and promoting environment management actions (as per the conventional tool box). Furthermore, many of the EIAs now require the developers to address issues of changes to ecosystem services and the associated human welfare. With this goes a public works programme - working for ecosystems - for the purposes of generating ecosystem services for meeting people’s bread and butter needs via payments for work and via the increased supply of high value ecosystem services to users. People's welfare became the focal point of management - not chameleons - but the chameleons did benefit - as they are the nuts and bolts in the benefit engine which everyone wants and can't afford to trash.
This new perspective has given environment management in Durban the space to develop a substantial platform and a basis to be bigger role player in decision making. Further supporting environment management, are emerging concepts about natural asset values. Unlike the value of money which is discounted over time, the value of ecosystem services escalates by at least the local population growth rate as more people access quality environments and use the services supplied. For example, flood mitigation service values will grow as population increases, in other words, with a fixed supply and growing demand – price goes up. So municipal natural asset values (and their associated ecosystem services) will grow by at least the same rate as the population and with urban in-migration. It is these types of arguments that ensure that environment gets serious consideration in decision making. It is these arguments that provide the space for environment management to be effectively implemented.
What has the Durban example taught us?
The perceptions of people drive their behaviour. The tool box will stay closed if the perceptions are such that people don't think it necessary to open it i.e. – environment is for chameleons only. Change the perceptions and the willingness to open the tool box will grow. Remember when Sir Nicholas Stern - the UKs Chief economist stood up and said 'we have a problem with global warming because we can't afford the consequences' - the commercial and political world took notice - and the ground swell grew significantly. Economics is persuasive – after all why do you work?
Re-imagine the role of environment – as it works for people - and this will help to motivate the use of our environment management tool box.
Appendix1 provides a list of products and tools that Ethekwini has used in its evolution of environmental management and sustainable development.
Adaptation to Climate Change

A case study exploring effective tools for integration
Penny Urquhart